» Articles » PMID: 26855443

Distributional Language Learning: Mechanisms and Models of Ategory Formation

Overview
Journal Lang Learn
Date 2016 Feb 9
PMID 26855443
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the past 15 years, a substantial body of evidence has confirmed that a powerful distributional learning mechanism is present in infants, children, adults and (at least to some degree) in nonhuman animals as well. The present article briefly reviews this literature and then examines some of the fundamental questions that must be addressed for any distributional learning mechanism to operate effectively within the linguistic domain. In particular, how does a naive learner determine the number of categories that are present in a corpus of linguistic input and what distributional cues enable the learner to assign individual lexical items to those categories? Contrary to the hypothesis that distributional learning and category (or rule) learning are separate mechanisms, the present article argues that these two seemingly different processes---acquiring specific structure from linguistic input and generalizing beyond that input to novel exemplars---actually represent a single mechanism. Evidence in support of this single-mechanism hypothesis comes from a series of artificial grammar-learning studies that not only demonstrate that adults can learn grammatical categories from distributional information alone, but that the specific patterning of distributional information among attested utterances in the learning corpus enables adults to generalize to novel utterances or to restrict generalization when unattested utterances are consistently absent from the learning corpus. Finally, a computational model of distributional learning that accounts for the presence or absence of generalization is reviewed and the implications of this model for linguistic-category learning are summarized.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Syntactic Knowledge in School-Age Children With Developmental Language Disorder: The Promise of Syntactic Priming.

Montgomery J, Gillam R, Plante E Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023; 33(2):580-597.

PMID: 37678208 PMC: 11001167. DOI: 10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00079.


Dynamics of Functional Networks for Syllable and Word-Level Processing.

Rimmele J, Sun Y, Michalareas G, Ghitza O, Poeppel D Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2023; 4(1):120-144.

PMID: 37229144 PMC: 10205074. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00089.


Kindergarteners Use Cross-Situational Statistics to Infer the Meaning of Grammatical Elements.

Spit S, Andringa S, Rispens J, Aboh E J Psycholinguist Res. 2022; 51(6):1311-1333.

PMID: 35794402 PMC: 9646556. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-022-09898-0.


Linking the neural basis of distributional statistical learning with transitional statistical learning: The paradox of attention.

Schneider J, Weng Y, Hu A, Qi Z Neuropsychologia. 2022; 172:108284.

PMID: 35667495 PMC: 10286817. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108284.


One model for the learning of language.

Yang Y, Piantadosi S Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022; 119(5).

PMID: 35074868 PMC: 8812683. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021865119.


References
1.
Wu R, Gopnik A, Richardson D, Kirkham N . Infants learn about objects from statistics and people. Dev Psychol. 2011; 47(5):1220-9. DOI: 10.1037/a0024023. View

2.
Shukla M, White K, Aslin R . Prosody guides the rapid mapping of auditory word forms onto visual objects in 6-mo-old infants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(15):6038-43. PMC: 3076873. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1017617108. View

3.
Saffran J, Pollak S, Seibel R, Shkolnik A . Dog is a dog is a dog: infant rule learning is not specific to language. Cognition. 2006; 105(3):669-80. PMC: 2066190. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.11.004. View

4.
Johnson S, Fernandas K, Frank M, Kirkham N, Marcus G, Rabagliati H . Abstract Rule Learning for Visual Sequences in 8- and 11-Month-Olds. Infancy. 2009; 14(1):2-18. PMC: 2654175. DOI: 10.1080/15250000802569611. View

5.
Shukla M, Nespor M, Mehler J . An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech. Cogn Psychol. 2006; 54(1):1-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.04.002. View